Punjab State Electricity Board

[adv.sumit]

Balvir Singh (aged 49 years) son of Sh.Babu Singh, resident of village: Mandar, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.



Complainant.

Versus



1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, PSEB, Patiala.

2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Kot Ise Khan.



Opposite Parties.








Sh.Balvir Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary and others (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’)-opposite parties directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.39068/- raised vide memo no.46 dated 4.9.2009 and also to pay Rs.10000/-as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.

2. Briefly stated, Sh.Balvir Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.MD59/0379F installed at his residential premises with sanctioned load of 1.78 KW in the name of Sucha Singh from whom he purchased the premises vide agreement dated 24.10.1996. That after the purchase of the said premises, the complainant has been using the said connection being ‘beneficiary’ and paying the consumption charges regularly with the OPs-Board and nothing is due against him.


That all of a sudden, he received a memo no.46 dated 4.9.2009 from the OPs-Board vide which they raised a demand of Rs.39068/-. That the complainant never committed any ‘theft of energy’. That the complainant approached the office of the OPs-Board and requested to withdraw the impugned demand, but to no effect. That the impugned demand is altogether wrong and illegal. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.10000/- as compensation. Hence the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.R.K.Goyal, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. On merits, it was averred that the electric connection in question was installed in the name of one Sucha Singh son of Dhara Singh, so the complainant has no locus standie to file the present complaint.


In fact on 25.8.2008 Sh.Amarjit Singh SDO Kot Ise Khan alongwith Baldev Singh JE checked the electric connection in question and found the complainant using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by joining the wire from PVC joint from the roof of his house and from the said joint direct kundis were connected by the complainant. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no.2469 dated 4.9.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.39068/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ under Electricity Act, 2003 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of bill Ex.A2, copy of notice Ex.A3, copy of agreement Ex.A4 and closed his evidence.

5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Jaspreet Singh XEN and Sh.Amarjit Singh SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3 and closed their evidence.

6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.B.S.Sidhu ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

7. Sh.R.K.Goyal ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that Balvir Singh complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board because the electric connection in question was issued in the name of Sucha Singh. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has no force. Admittedly, the electric connection in question was issued in the name of Such Singh who purchased the premises alongwith electric connection in question vide agreement dated Ex.A4 from said Sucha Singh and since then the electric connection in question was used by the complainant being his ‘beneficiary’ and he used to pay the consumption charges regularly.


This fact has not been controverted by the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that Balvir Singh complainant being beneficiary is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board. Our this view stands fortified by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Pb. Chandigarh in Appeal No.218 of 2004 (Ashwani Kumar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.) decided on 16.8.2005. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“Suffice it to say that in case of Ashwani Kumar he is the owner in possession of the premises though the connection is in the name of Kartar Devi and is actually the consumer of the electricity and therefore, a ‘consumer’’



8. However, Balvir Singh complainant who is using the electric connection in question, is directed to get the same transferred in his name within 3 months after complying with the requisite formalities.

9. Sh.B.S.Sidhu, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.39038/- raised vide memo dated 4.9.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong and illegal. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, on 25.8.2008 Sh.Amarjit Singh SDO Kot Ise Khan alongwith Baldev Singh JE checked the electric connection in question and found the complainant using the electricity by illegal means i.e. by joining the wire from PVC joint from the roof of his house and from the said joint direct kundis were connected by the complainant. The checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no.2469 dated 4.9.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.39068/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ under Electricity Act, 2003 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. To further strengthen the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the OPs-Board has produced the joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Jaspreet Singh XEN and Sh.Amarjit Singh SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of notice Ex.R3.

10. Moreover, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing ‘theft of electricity’ except his bare affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on his affidavit Ex.A1 and we discard the same. Hence, we hold that the complainant was found committing ‘theft of energy’.

11. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant can be made liable to pay Rs.39068/- on account of ‘theft of energy’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003. The answer to this question is partly in negative. The OPs-Board has not strictly complied with the provisions of new Electricity Act, 2003. Admittedly, the electric connection installed at the premises of the complainant is domestic. Regulation 36 & 37 (4) of Annexure-8 u/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 shows that in case of ‘theft of energy’, the domestic consumer at the most can be charged by taking the demand factor of 30%. ]




Copy of checking report Ex.R2 issued by the OPs-Board as well as written reply and affidavit Ex.R1 show that they have charged the impugned amount by taking the demand factor as 100% instead of 30%. Thus, we hold that the impugned demand of Rs.39069/- raised vide memo4.9.2008 from the complainant is liable to be set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for ‘theft of energy’ by taking the demand factor as 30% under the said Act.

12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

[adv.sumit]

Parminder Singh aged 43 years, S/o Sh. Jagjit singh, R/o Vill. Kahlwan, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Complainant

versus


1.

Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, the Mall, Patiala.
2.

Punjab State Electricity Board, Miani, Tehsil Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur, through The Executive Engineer.

............. Opp.Parties



1.

The complainant namely Parminder Singh has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is having domestic electricity connection No. AB-66/503. That the complainant is regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties, thus he is a consumer.



2.

It is the case of the complainant that he never used the electricity unauthorizedly. He status of the meter was OK. It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to received notice No. 1992 dated 15.6.2009 with the direction to deposit the amount of rs. 31,267/- with the opposite parties within seven days from the receipt of the notice. It is further the case of the complainant that a false allegation has been made in the said notice that he was stealing the energy from near the meter by bye-passing the meter through wire.



3.

It is the case of the complainant that the checking of the meter was never made in his presence nor his signatures were obtained on the meter checking memo. The meter of the complainant was never checked by any authority of the opposite parties in his presence or any member of his family. That no report was lodged with regard to the theft of the electricity. The complainant made a request to the opposite parties to withdraw the notice dated 15.6.2009, but of no consequences, hence this complaint.



4.

The opposite parties filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis jurisdiction and estoppel were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. That the complainant was found committing the theft of electricity. It is replied that Sh. Baldev Raj, AEE/SDO, City Sub Division, Tanda and Sh. Jaswant Singh, AAE raided the premises of the complainant and found that he had connected the incoming electricity line reaching to the meter before the meter and was using electricity supply by bye-passing the meter and in this manner, he was found committing theft of electricity as per report dated 13.6.2009.


The complainant signed the checking report in token of its correctness and thereafter, the demand of Rs. 31,267/- was raised, per rules of the Electricity Board. That an intimation for lodging FIR to the PS, Jalandhar was also made. A provisional notice of demand was issued to the complainant. The complainant has deposited Rs. 15,634/- till date. The disconnection order was passed on 15.6.2009, which was implemented on 17.6.2009. It is further replied that it was noticed that the complainant had illegally reconnected the electricity supply of his own.


5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, notice dated 15.6.2009 – Ex. C-2, bill dated 2.1.2009 – Ex. C-3, bill dated 2.6.2008 – Ex. C-4, bill dated 4.7.2008 – Ex. C-5, bill dated 3.11.2008 – Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.


6.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Baldev Raj – Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Jaswant Singh – Ex.OP-2, affidavit of APS Multani – Ex. OP-3, checking report dated 13.6.2009 – Ex. OP-4, notice dated 15.6.2009 – Ex.OP-5, calculation sheet – Ex. OP-6, letter dated 15.6.2009 – Ex.OP-7, application by the complainant – Ex. OP-8, DCO – Ex. OP-9, DCO – Ex. OP-9, letter of instalment of payment – Ex. OP-10, Circular – Ex. OP-11 (4 sheets), checking report dated 6.7.2009 – Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.


7.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.


8.

Ex. OP-3 is the affidavit of APS Multani, AEE, PSEB, Miani, District Hoshiarpur, in support of the averments contained in the reply. Ex. OP-4 is the Checking Report dated 13.6.2009, which is supported by the affidavits of Baldev Raj, AEE, City Sub Division, Tanda, PSEB, District Hoshiarpur and Jaswant Singh, Asstt. AE, City Sub-Division, Tanda, PSEB, District Hoshiarpur – Ex. OP-1 and Ex. OP-2 respectively, wherein they have deposed that the premises of the complainant was raided. It was found that the complainant had connected the incoming electricity line reaching to the meter before the meter and was using electricity supply by bye-passing the meter and in this manner, he was found committing theft of electricity as per report dated 13.6.2009. The complainant signed the checking report in token of its correctness. Ex. OP-6 is the calculation sheet and Ex. OP-5 is the notice.


9.

Now, it is established on record that the contents of the report – Ex. OP-4 had been supported by the affidavits Ex. OP-1 and Ex. OP-2, referred to above. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to rebut the contents of the checking report -Ex. OP-4. The self-serving affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 is also not sufficient to rebut the checking report – Ex. OP-4

[adv.sumit]

Sardara Singh s/o Bhagat Singh r/o village Kullian Bala, P.O. Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

........ Complainant

versus


PSEB, Sub Division, S.D.O. (City) Dasuya.

........ Opposite Party






1.

The complainant namely Sardara Singh has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electricity connection No. CC45/195.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that the officials of the Electricity Board demanded Sundry Charges of Rs. 3182/-. The demand of sundry charges is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.
3.

The opposite party filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability and concealment of material facts were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant has concealed the material facts, as earlier the connected/sanctioned load of his connection was 1.890 KW, which was reduced on his request to 0.693 KW, per SJO No. 64/39889 dated 27.12.07, therefore, he was not entitled to concession as per Circular No. 68/2006 and Circular No. 12/97. The charges of Rs. 3182/- have been levied for the period 10/08 to 4/09 (Rs. 2904/- - SOP and Rs. 278/- - E.D. = Rs. 3182/-). That vide Memo No. 1157 dated 15.5.2009, the complainant was explained with regard to the demand of Rs. 3182/-. The account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party.
4.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, electricity bill dated 7.6.2009 – Ex. C-2, copy of Ration Card – Mark C-3 and closed the evidence.
5.

In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaswant Singh – Ex. OP-1, receipt No. 39889 regarding reduction of load - Ex. OP-2, extract of ledger and account of Sardara Singh – Ex. OP-3, extract of account of Sardara Singh – Ex. OP-4, copy of Circular No. 68/2006 – Ex. OP-5, copy of letter dated 5.5.2009 – Ex. OP-6, memo No. 1157 - Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
6.

The complainant and ld. Counsel for the opposite party filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
7.

To reach on the just conclusion to this case, it will be relevant to reproduce instruction No. 124.1 of the Sales Regulations of Electricity Board as under :-

“There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/load or demand surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/Detected by the Authorized Officers either owning to negligence of Board's employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc., in all such cases, separate bill should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer.”

8.

Now, it is clear that where the consumer is billed for some dues on account of irregularities/malpractices etc., the separate bill should be issued by giving the complete details of the charges levied. That instruction No. 124.1, referred to above, is clear that the opposite party should have issued a separate bill by giving complete details of the charges. Since the opposite party had not issued a separate bill giving complete details of charges qua bill - Ex. C-2, therefore, the demand in question raised by the opposite party is illegal and cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny.
9.

As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the demand in question of Rs.3,182/- raised qua bill dated 7.6.2009 - Ex. C-2 is quashed. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.1000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

[adv.sumit]

Sh. Jai Kishan S/o Sh. Mool Raj R/O Innder Dana Mandi, Nawanshahr

Complainant.

Versus



1 P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2 XEN City Division (D.S.) P.S.E.B. Nawanshahr

3 A.E. E. City Sub Division, PSEB Nawanshahr.

Respondents



Jai Kishan (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala,XEN City Division (D.S.) P.S.E.B. NawanshahrA.E. E. City Sub Division, PSEB and Nawanshahr. (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1,2 and 3 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to withdraw the excessive demand made in the bill dated 20-10-2008, 20-12-2008 and 17-02-2009 and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs 25,000/- along with Rs 5,000/- as litigation cost.

2 The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to Electric connection bearing account No N43SF540647N. The Ops had issued bill in the month of June which was alleged to be excessive which was later on corrected on his representation. Subsequently the disputed bill 20-10-2008, 20-12-2008 and 17-02-2009 were received which included certain amount as arrears. OP No.3 was requested to rectify the bill but he refused to do so. Thus the Ops were claimed to be deficient in service which cause mental as well as physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3 In the written version filed by the Ops, it was contended that as the complainant had challenged the bill, his meter was replaced vide SJO No. 075/69005 dated 01-03-2007. The old meter was sent to the ME Lab Goraya with the consent of the complainant for its checking in his absence and as per report of the M.E. Lab it was found dead stop. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

3. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents.

4. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

5. From the written version filed by the ops, it is clear that the complainant had challenged the correctness of the bill and consequently his meter was replaced. The complainant has placed on record the bills Ex C-4 to C-11 which include certain amount as arrears . Ex C-2 is the copy of the letter no. 27 dated 03-06-2009 issued by the Ops to the complainant in which it was alleged that during checking of the meter by ME Lab it was found dead stop which was contrary to the allegations of the complainant that it was running fast. Therefore amount of Rs 26,200/- was demanded from him. The Ops have placed on record the application copy of which is Ex R2 moved by the complainant vide which he had challenged the correctness of the bill. The meter of the complainant had been replaced vide MCO No. 075/69005 dated 01-03-2007 Ex R3. The Ops have not placed on record any report of the ME Lab to the effect that the meter was found dead stop. Rather they relied upon the challan vide which certain meters had been sent to the ME Lab for checking.


There is a remark in the entry at Sr. No. 1 relating to the complainant’s meter that it was found dead stop. No significance can be attached to this entry because it can not be made out as to who had written the same or the meter was ever checked by the ME Lab Goraya. The demand therefore is rendered illegal, which also amounts also deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6. Otherwise also, if the meter of the complainant was found dead stop, the Ops could overhaul the account of the complainant in accordance with the Sales Regulation 73.1 which relates to dead stop or burnt meter. The Ops have not opted to do so. The complainant therefore could not be burdened with the liability.

7. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of arrears made in the bills dated 20-10-2008, 20-12-2008 and 17-02-2009 and refrain from disconnecting the supply of the complainant for non-payment of this amount.

8. The Ops are at liberty to proceed against the complainant afresh in accordance with Sales Regulation 73.1 after giving a proper notice to the complainant within one month.

[adv.sumit]

Lal Singh s/o Sohan Singh R/O Village Ladian, P.O. Jandiala Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar/ Nawanshahr. …Complainant.

Versus

1 P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2 S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr

3 XEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr

4 S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr.

…Respondents



Lal Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, NawanshahrXEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr and S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1,2,3 and 4 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to increase the voltage for smooth running of tube well motor of the complainant and also pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation for loss of crops.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to Motor tube well connection bearing account No. LD-135 with a load of 7.5 for BHP running his tube well for irrigation purposes. The voltage to the connection of the complainant was very low and even less than 440 volt. Repeated representation to the Ops to increase the voltage did not bear any fruit. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the aforesaid facts were not disputed. It was contended that the complainant got his load increased from 5BHP to 7.5 BHP under VDS scheme. On 19-05-2007 certain villagers were alleged to have submitted application that due to the length of LT Line which is longer the fuse of the transformers became inoperative & shuts of on account of the excessive load on the LT and H.T. lines. Accordingly the load of the transformer was distributed and in addition a 63 KW transformers was installed. The other schemes were stated to be ready of R.E. and APDRP for giving separate connections by fixing separate transformers under HVDS scheme. It was contended that the consumers were enjoying the voltage of 359 in place of 415 volt. It was further stated that all the problems have been solved . A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents.

5. We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. From the written version filed by the ops, it is evident that so for the grievance of the complainant that the voltage of his tube well connection was low stands duly admitted. Even from the written version filed by the Ops, if, the same is treated to be true, the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant was 359 instead of 415 volts. The reason for this low voltage may be beyond the control of the ops yet the ops are not exonerated from their liability towards the complainant for maintaining proper voltage for running tube well connection of the complainant. Thus the deficiency in service on the part of the ops towards the complainant is duly established.

7. Vide Punjab Government Gazette Notification dated July 27 2007 a duty was cast upon the Ops to remove the deficiencies in upgradation of distribution system within 30 days. Clause 2 (1) of the Notification relates to voltage fluctuations. Sub clause (a) provides that the

(a) The Licensee will, with reference to the declared voltage, maintain voltage at the point of commencement of supply to a consumer with the limits stipulated period hereunder:

(i) In the case of LT Supply: +6%

(ii) In the case of HT Supply: +6% and -9%

(iii) In the case of EHT Supply : +10% and -12.5%

(b) On receipt of a voltage fluctuation complaint, the Licensee will verify if the voltage fluctuation is exceeding the limits specified in sub –para (a) above and if confirmed, the Licensee will:

(i) Rectify the problem within four hours in the case of loose joints;

(ii) Ensure that the voltage are brought within the said limits within two days of original complaint if no expansion/enhancement of network is involved: and

(iii) Resolve the complaint within thirty days, if up-gradation of the distribution system is required.

8. In the present case that the Ops have admitted that representations of the certain villagers had been received on 19-05-2007 copy of which is Ex C-3. The complainant has tendered Ex C-2 & C4 copies of representation dated 07-08-2006 dated 06-02-2008 also considerable period has already elapsed and the grievance of the complainant has not been removed so for.

9. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the Ops to remove the deficiency in service towards the complainant about increasing the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant for its smooth functioning.

[adv.sumit]

Surinder Singh s/o Piara Singh R/O Village Ladian, P.O. Jandiala Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar/ Nawanshahr ….Complainant.

Versus

1 P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2 S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr

3 XEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr

4 S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr.

….Respondents





Surinder Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, NawanshahrXEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr and S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1,2,3 and 4 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to increase the voltage for smooth running of tube well motor of the complainant and also pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation for loss of crops.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to Motor tube well connection bearing account No LD-94 with a load of 7.5 BHP for running his tube well for irrigation purposes. The voltage to the connection of the complainant was very low and even less than 440 volt. Repeated representations to the Ops to increase the voltage did not bear any fruit. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the aforesaid facts were not disputed. It was contended that the complainant got his load increased from 5BHP to 7.5 BHP under VDS scheme. On 19-05-2007 certain villagers were alleged to have submitted application that due to the length of LT Line which is longer, the fuse of the transformers became inoperative & shuts of on account of the excessive load on the LT and H.T. lines.


Accordingly the load of the transformer was distributed and in addition a 63 KW transformers was installed. The other schemes were stated to be ready of R.E. and APDRP for giving separate connections by fixing separate transformers under HVDS scheme. It was contended that the consumers were enjoying the voltage of 359 in place of 415 volt. It was further stated that all the problems have been solved. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents.

5. We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. From the written version filed by the ops, it is evident that so for the grievance of the complainant that the voltage of his tube well connection was low stands duly admitted. Even from the written version filed by the Ops, if, the same is treated to be true, the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant was 359 instead of 415 volts. The reason for this low voltage may be beyond the control of the ops yet the ops are not exonerated from their liability towards the complainant for maintaining proper voltage for running tube well connection of the complainant. Thus the deficiency in service on the part of the ops towards the complainant is duly established.

7. Vide Punjab Government Gazette Notification dated July 27, 2007 a duty was cast upon the Ops to remove the deficiencies in upgradation of distribution system within 30 days. Clause 2 (1) of the Notification relates to voltage fluctuations. Sub clause (a) provides that the :-

(a) The Licensee will, with reference to the declared voltage, maintain voltage at the point of commencement of supply to a consumer with the limits stipulated period hereunder:

(i) In the case of LT Supply: +6%

(ii) In the case of HT Supply: +6% and -9%

(iii) In the case of EHT Supply : +10% and -12.5%

(b) On receipt of a voltage fluctuation complaint, the Licensee will verify if the voltage fluctuation is exceeding the limits specified in sub –para (a) above and if confirmed, the Licensee will:

(i) Rectify the problem within four hours in the case of loose joints;

(ii) Ensure that the voltage are brought within the said limits within two days of original complaint if no expansion/enhancement of network is involved: and

(iii) Resolve the complaint within thirty days, if up-gradation of the distribution system is required.

8. In the present case that the Ops have admitted that representations of the certain villagers had been received on 19-05-2007 copy of which is Ex C-3. The complainant has tendered Ex C-2 & C4 copies of representation dated 07-08-2006 dated 06-02-2008 also considerable period has already elapsed and the grievance of the complainant has not been removed so for.

9. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the Ops to remove the deficiency in service towards the complainant about increasing the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant for its smooth functioning.

[adv.sumit]

Tarsem Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Singh R/O Vilalge Saloh Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr

Complainant.

Versus



1 P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2 XEN (Rural) Division Nawanshahr

3 S.D.O. (Rural)PSEB Nawanshahr.

Respondents





Tarsem Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala XEN (Rural) Division Nawanshahr and S.D.O. (Rural)PSEB Nawanshahr.(hereinafter called as Ops No. 1,2 and 3 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs 34,678/- and also pay Rs 25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs 5500/- as litigation cost.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to Electric connection bearing account No N44LG390230Y. The Ops had served a notice dated 18-05-2009 upon the complainant vide which a sum of Rs 34,678/- was demanded from him. The complainant had challenged the said notice in an earlier complaint but the said complaint being premature, was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to file objections, if any against the notice. In compliance of the said order the complainant had filed objections which were dismissed by the Ops vide letter dated 02-06-2009 and the complainant was called upon to deposit the amount within 15 days.


Fresh demand notice dated 18-05-2009 was also served upon the complainant. The demand has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that no notice was ever served upon the complainant for sending the meter to the laboratory, nor any application had been filed by the complainant to the Ops that his meter is out of order. The demand is thus illegal. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, it was contended that the mechanical meter of the complainant had been replaced vide MCO No.174/79777 dated 30-03-2009 as per instructions of the Board. The old meter was sent to the ME Lab Goraya vide challan no. 2 dated 15-05-2009 and the ME Lab had observed that at the time of checking of the meter X-ray paper was found in it as a result of which the meter was not working. Therefore it is a theft case. Accordingly show cause notice dated 18-05-2009 was served upon the complainant and the objections filed by the complainant were found to be not satisfactory.


Thereafter fresh show cause notice dated 02-06-2009 was served upon the complainant to deposit the amount but the complainant did not comply with the same and a fresh notice dated 18/06/2009 was served upon him. It was denied that demand was illegal. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents.

5. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. From the written version filed by the ops, it is evident that the amount in dispute is being claimed on the basis of the ME Lab report about checking of the meter. Surprisingly, the said ME Lab report has not been placed on record. Ex R-2 relied upon by the Ops, is a photo state copy of the challan no. 2 dated 15-05-2009 vide which mechanical meter had been sent to the ME Lab Goraya for checking. Instead of issuing any separate report about the checking of the disputed meter, certain remarks are given against the entry at Sr. No. 2 relating to the meter of the complainant, to the effect that the X-ray paper was found present in the meter.


It is also not known as to who made this endorsement and what was its basis. The Ops can not be permitted to take any benefit of these remarks by treating the same as the report of ME Lab. Thus an adverse inference has been drawn against the contention of the Ops that any X-ray paper was found in the meter of the complainant. The demand raised by the Op from the complainant thus is rendered illegal which also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

7. Otherwise also, in the absence of any specific observation of the official of the Board who had remove the mechanical meter from the spot that he doubted theft of energy and tempering of the meter. The Ops could not straightway come to the conclusion that the complainant did commit theft of energy. In such state of affairs, at the most ops could overhaul the account of the complainant as per Sales Regulations 73 which has not been done by the Ops in this case.

8. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.34,678/- made from the complainant vide notice dated 18-05-2009 as well as 02-06-2009 and refrain from disconnecting the supply of the complainant for non-payment of this amount.

[adv.sumit]

Virsa Singh s/o Sadhu Singh R/O Village Ladian, P.O. Jandiala Tehsil and Distt. SBS Nagar/ Nawanshahr. …Complainant.

Versus

1 P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2 S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr

3 XEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr

4 S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr.

…Respondents



Virsa Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the P.S.E.B. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.S.E. PSEB, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr XEN, PSEB, Garhshankar Raod, Nawanshahr and S.D.O. PSEB Banga, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr. (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1,2,3 and 4 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the Ops to increase the voltage for smooth running of tube well motor of the complainant and also pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation for loss of crops.

2. The brief admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to Motor tube well connection bearing account No LD-122 with a load of 7.5 BHP for running his tube well for irrigation purposes. The voltage to the connection of the complainant was very low and even less than 440 volt. Repeated representation to the Ops to increase the voltage did not bear any fruit. Hence this complaint.

3. In the written version filed by the Ops, the aforesaid facts were not disputed. It was contended that the complainant got his load increased from 5BHP to 7.5 BHP under VDS scheme. On 19-05-2007 certain villagers were alleged to have submitted application that due to the length of LT Line which is longer, the fuse of the transformers became inoperative & shuts of on account of the excessive load on the LT and H.T. lines.


Accordingly the load of the transformer was distributed and in addition a 63 KW transformers was installed. The other schemes were stated to be ready of R.E. and APDRP for giving separate connections by fixing separate transformers under HVDS scheme. It was contended that the consumers were enjoying the voltage of 359 in place of 415 volt. It was further stated that all the problems have been solved . A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.

4. Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and other documents.

5. We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.

6. From the written version filed by the ops, it is evident that so for the grievance of the complainant that the voltage of his tube well connection was low stands duly admitted. Even from the written version filed by the Ops, if, the same is treated to be true, the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant was 359 instead of 415 volts. The reason for this low voltage may be beyond the control of the ops yet the ops are not exonerated from their liability towards the complainant for maintaining proper voltage for running tube well connection of the complainant. Thus the deficiency in service on the part of the ops towards the complainant is duly established.

7. Vide Punjab Government Gazette Notification dated July 27 2007 a duty was cast upon the Ops to remove the deficiencies in upgradation of distribution system within 30 days. Clause 2 (1) of the Notification relates to voltage fluctuations. Sub clause (a) provides that the

(a) The Licensee will, with reference to the declared voltage, maintain voltage at the point of commencement of supply to a consumer with the limits stipulated period hereunder:

(i) In the case of LT Supply: +6%

(ii) In the case of HT Supply: +6% and -9%

(iii) In the case of EHT Supply : +10% and -12.5%

(b) On receipt of a voltage fluctuation complaint, the Licensee will verify if the voltage fluctuation is exceeding the limits specified in sub –para (a) above and if confirmed, the Licensee will:

(i) Rectify the problem within four hours in the case of loose joints;

(ii) Ensure that the voltage are brought within the said limits within two days of original complaint if no expansion/enhancement of network is involved: and

(iii) Resolve the complaint within thirty days, if up-gradation of the distribution system is required.

8. In the present case that the Ops have admitted that representations of the certain villagers had been received on 19-05-2007 copy of which is Ex C-3. The complainant has tendered Ex C-2 & C4 copies of representation dated 07-08-2006 dated 06-02-2008 also considerable period has already elapsed and the grievance of the complainant has not been removed so for.

9. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the Ops to remove the deficiency in service towards the complainant about increasing the voltage to the tube well connection of the complainant for its smooth functioning.

[adv.sumit]

Swarn Kumar S/o Hari Ram R/o Kulam Road, Nawanshahr. ...Complainant

Versus

1 Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its chairman.

2 The Superintending Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr.

3 The Executive Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr.

4 The SDO, PSEB, City Sub Division Nawanshahr. ..Respondents





O R D E R



Present complaint has been filed by the complainant Swarn Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) against PSEB, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, on the allegations that the Bill dated 30-03-009 for Rs 14,950/- in respect of the electric connection/ account no. CF 42-0827Y-N DS is highly exorbitant and ill-legally raised and disproportionate to earlier charges ;that when he approached the Ops, the Ops alleged that the premises were being used for commercial purpose therefore the bill is absolutely legal ;that this contention of the Ops is totally false; that the connection is used purely for domestic purposes; with pleading to quash the impugned demand expressed under sundry charges in the bill dated 30/03/2009 and also to make the Ops pay damages to the tune of Rs 20,000/- for deficiency in consumer service along with costs.

2. In response to the notice the ops in their written reply have taken up the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands that the complainant is grieved by his own conduct to file the present complaint etc.


On merits it has been contended that the complainant has taken law into his own hand by changing the purpose of supply without getting the prior permission of PSEB; as is evident from the site report No. 35/154 prepared by the meter Inspector along with Divisional Task Force at the time of inspection that the copy of site report was duly served upon ‘Shameem’ one of the workers working on sewing machine in the premises that the The same report was got scrutinized from the audit party who prepared half margin No. 85 dated 06/02/2009 where in the audit party has in the recommendation of the inspecting team has calculated the draft against this connection on NRS basis which has come to 13,212/-. The Ops have finally pleaded to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3. To prove his allegations Sh. R.S. Kaluti, advocate, counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant is Ex C1, Ex C2 is bill dated 30-03-2009 & closed the evidence.

4. To rebut the complainant’s evidence Sh. K.S. Dhindsa, advocate, counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh, AEE City Sub Division, Nawanshahr is R1, along with documents Ex R2 to Ex R8 and closed his evidence.

5. We have gone through the written arguments placed on record & have heard in detail the arguments of both the learned counsels; - for the complainant Sh. R.S. Kulati, advocate; and Sh. K.S, advocate, Counsel for the Ops and have perused the record.

6. The complainant in the written arguments has only reproduced the contentions expressed in the pleadings of the complaint. Regarding the Ops’ averments that the consumer/complainant was found using the premises qua the meter installed there in for commercial purpose, the complaint has stated that this assertion of the OPs is illegal and unwarranted the complainant is only keeping tenants occupying 3 rooms; who remain out of the premises for the whole day to earn their livelihood and use the premises only at night. Once again it is reiterated that the said connection is being used only for domestic purpose etc.


On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs Sh. K.S. Dhindsa has also submitted the written arguments laying stress on the use of premises for commercial purposes as his evident from the site report 35/154 dated 24/01/2009 signed allegedly by one of the workers on the spot; that this checking was effectively conducted by the Divisional Task Force fully empowered by the electrical inspection to spot visit the premises to check the misuse of electricity; that this checking report also contained the calculation for the electricity consumed on NRC basis as recommended on the checking report itself.


The Ops have also contended that as per Rule 35.1.3 of Electrical Supply Regulations Act 2003 DS consumer is to be charged as CS if any portion of the premises is being used for commercial purposes. He has also given the copy of Sales Manual section 5 instructions No. 128 C “----------note: the rate for the third slab shall be that for “C.S.” tariff. …In the case of single shop-cum-flat occupied by one and the same person, the entire consumption shall be charged on “C.S.” tariff for the period separate meters are not provided.


Endeavour should, however, be made to provide separate meters for recording domestic and commercial consumption separately at the earliest possible.” The learned counsel has also cited the case Chander Bhushan VS Jayesh Mehta cited as JRC 2003 (2) 453 and CPC 2004 (1) to substantiate his contention that the any act/service done for commercial purposes is taken out of the review of CPA etc. The ratio of this case is not applicable to the present case as the Ops have failed to prove that the said connection was being used for commercial purpose Ops evidence Ex.R-1 affidavit of the A.E.E. has failed to specifically point this out.

7. After due consideration of the record on the file and after going through the written as well as oral arguments we may accept the Op’s a site report 35/154 dated 24/01/2009 duly served upon one of the workers of the complainant and also calculations on the reverse side of this checking report based on the recommendation made under ‘the note’ on the site report as the complainant has failed to deny the signatures on the report either in the pleadings or in the affidavit or in evidence. But we fail to accept the learned counsel’s arguments that the procedure laid down for the checking and subsequent notices/opportunities to be given to the consumer have been duly followed.


Perusal of the record on the face of it shows that their so called notice in compliance with the procedure to be followed have been an after-thought exercise as these have been issued after the complaint was filed on 16/04/2009 where as the notices Ex R-2 is dated 03/06/2009 and Ex R-3 is dated 22/06/2009. Under these circumstances when the complaint is pending in the Forum these notices fail to serve any purpose.

8. In view of the above discussion we are constrained to allow the complaint quashing the impugned bill dated 30/03/2009 for Rs.13,212/- expressed under sundry charges Op Board is directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- already deposited by the complainant in compliance with this Forum’s interim order dated 16/04/2009 after adjusting the current charges included in the bill. However, the OP Board is further directed to follow the procedure; to raise the demand afresh as per the Board’s rules & regulations after giving an opportunity to the complainant of being heard.

[adv.sumit]

Sh.Sukhwinder Singh S/o Giani Rajinder Singh R/o Chandigarh Road Near Paris Hotel, Nawanshahr. ….Complainant.

Versus



1 Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its chairman.

2 The Superintending Engineer, PSEB, Nawanshahr.

3 The Executive Engineer (Operation), PSEB, Nawanshahr.

4 SDO, City Sub Division (Operation), PSEB, Nawanshahr. …..Respondents





O R D E R



Present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sukhwinder Singh U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) against PSEB, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the complainant is the consumer of meter connection no. CF-33/859 (DS). Allegedly the Op took away the said meter with the meter status as 'OK', subsequently to his utter surprise a demand of Rs.83,397/- was raised vide notice No. 497 dated 09-04-2009 without giving any opportunity of being heard. That since then the Op has been threatening to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant. It has been prayed to quash the illegal demand of Rs 83,397/- and also award the Ops with Rs.10,000/- by way of damages for deficiency in consumer service.

2. Notice of this complaint was served to the Ops. In the written statement the Ops have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint has got no locus standi in the present complaint and has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits admitting the complainant as consumer the OPs contended that as per Board’s instructions the electronic three phase meter was installed in place of mechanical meter; at the main gate of the house in MCB; that no notice is required as per the board's instructions in case of routine change of meter from mechanical to electronic.


It has been averred when the old meter No. 05904 was removed the final reading of the meter was 015684 that the meter has been changed vide MCO no. 193/67728 on 13/01/2009 effected on 15/01/2009 that the said meter was tested in M.E. Lab Goraya AEE/SDO (C) Sub Division Nawanshahr and SDO ME Goraya with the consent of the consumer/complainant. That the complainant gave consent in writing to the PSEB at Nawanashahr that his meter will be tested in ME Lab Goraya in his absence due to his busy in his work. That the testing result of the meter ME Lab Goraya will be accepted to the complainant and that he has no objection in this regard.


That in the ME Lab Goraya after inspecting the meter it was found that vide challan number 58/02/04/2009 Er. Talwinder Singh J.E. Sub Division Nawanshahr brought this meter in the closed pack on which seal was effected with the signatures of the consumer/Surinder Singh nominee and the concerned JE Er. Harbans Singh. On opening the pack of meter in the presence of Sr. Executive Engineer Enforcement Nawanshahr Sub Divisional Officer ME Lab Goraya Er. Gurmail Singh J.E. testing Lab Goraya and other concerned officials, it was found that there was no seal affixed on the meter “but 2 number seals upon the pack of the box, 2 damaged seals were found bearing number M5156/ME06” etc. In the absence of the seals it was observed that theft of electric energy was being done by the consumer and the same was proved by the consumption data sent by the concerned officials because the consumption load was 11.91KW but the consumption was not according to the load.


After the completion of the Board’s instructions in the ME Lab the meter was repacked twice and handed over to Er. Surinder Singh for further action. Hence the notice no. 497 dated 09/04/2009 for Rs.83,397/- is very much legal and genuine etc. It has been prayed that the present complaint filed on false and frivolous grounds may be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.

3. To prove his allegations Miss Sapna Jaggi, advocate, counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the attorney of complainant Harvinder Kaur wife of Sukhwinder Singh s/o Joga Singh r/o New Saini Sweets Garhshankar Distt. Hoshiarpur is Ex CW1, Ex C1 notrised copy of power of attorney. Ex C2 and Ex C3 receipts. Ex C4 notice dated 09/04/2008. Ex C5 also receipt; & closed the evidence. At argument stage the ld counsel for the complainant also summoned & exhibited as evidence true attested copies of Meter Changed Order Ex C6, and Challan Bearing no. 58 dated 02/04/2009 Ex C7.

4. To rebut the complainant’s evidence Sh.P.K. Dhir, advocate, counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence Ex R1 – affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh, AEE City Sub Division , Nawanshahr, Ex R2 report of AEE Senior Executive Engineer with ME Lab Goraya, Ex R3 consumption data. Notice dated 09/04/2009 to Sukhwinder Singh Ex R4. Registered Letter to Sukhwinder Singh Ex R5 and closed his evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as the Ops also submitted arguments in writing reiterating their points taken up in the pleadings or in the written statement.

6. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels; - for the complainant Miss Sapna Jaggi, advocate, and Sh. P.K. Dhir, ld Counsel, advocate for the Ops & have also duly considered the record on the file.

7. Oral arguments were also heard in detail. Learned counsel for the Ops, in his written arguments, besides repeating his contentions given in the written statement has specifically pointed out the copy of site checking report by the enforcement being register page no. 49/31 dated 02/04/2009 and also the Xerox copy of the consumption data of meter no. CF 33/859. He has also laid stress on the notice 497 dated 19/04/2009 served upon the complainant by registered post.


Rest written arguments are the replica of the written statement. During the oral arguments the learned counsel Sh. P.K. Dhir, advocate for the OPs vehemently pointed out that the due consent of the complainant/his representative Surinder Singh was obtained at the time of checking; it was again contended that no notice is required for simple change of meter from mechanical to electronic; that the dully sealed box containing the meter was sent to ME Lab for further checking Ex R-2 that the ME Lab Goraya report regarding theft of electricity is also corroborated by the Ex R-3 the consumption data which shows the consumption of only of 49 units even during summer month The learned counsel referred to some oral instructions by PSEB regarding no requirement of notice for mass change of mechanical meter to electronic meter etc.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted the arguments in writing which is more or less repetition of the pleadings in the complaint with a stress on mandatory procedure laid down by the Op department duly mentioned in commercial circular No. 8/99, 45/98. In order to rebut the Ops’ stand that the old meter was duly seal packed and sent to ME Lab, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to MCO Ex C-6 dated 13/01/2009 where in no remarks have been made regarding tempering of the meter or broken seals which is mandatory hence it is argued just the seal packing of the meter at the time of change of the meter does not carry much weight.


It has further been pointed out that just because of this lapse on the part of the Op the MCO Ex.C-6, a significant document, intentionally was not produced in their evidence; This definitely, as vehemently contended, is essential document in the procedure of removal of meter depicting/status of meter at the time of removal; that the said documents i.e. Ex C-6 MCO was summoned by the complainant to show his bonafide; that it has been further averred no notice regarding date and time of place of checking meter was ever served upon the complainant that the perusal of the consent memo on the face of it shows that it was signed by some Surinder Singh who is neither the relative nor any nominee of the complainant so who this the signatory on the consent is only known to the op.


Moreover our attention has also been drawn towards the PLR CLR III 2009 (1) page 4 PSEB VS Commissioner Appeal with the observations that for any lapse on the part of the ops consumer can not be held liable; finally it has been argued that as the demand of 83397/- raised vide memo no. 497 dated 09/04/2009 is in violation of the instructions issued by the department and against the principle of natural justice to be declared illegal thus quashed. A pleading has also been made to compensate the complainant for the harassment and undue litigation.

9. We have given due consideration to the record on the file, the written as well as oral argument heard of both the learned counsels for the complainant as well as for the OPs. In view of the complaint’s affidavit CW1, we disagree with the learned counsel for the ops that due consent was obtained of the complainant for the checking of the meter of the ME Lab; that there is no need for notice or consent in case of routine change of mechanical meter to electronic meter.


Perusal of Ex C-7 i.e. challan no. 58 dated 02-04-2009 as Sr. No. 9 with the remarks ME "seals tutian han chori case hai", we can not but accept that learned counsel for the complainant’s argument that in the remarks attested by the senior officers it is clearly written that the above mentioned meters Sr. No. 6 to 10 are attested that there is no challenge theft or DSE case related to these meters; No. 2 that it is attested/ certified that all the dues relating to the above meter are clear No.3 certified that all the above mentioned meter have been duly entered in ME-2; such a certificate Ex C-7 by Executive Engineer, a Senior Class-1 officer leaves no doubt regarding the correctness of this certification. So for as Op’s contention regarding remarks at Sr. No. 9 of challan no. 58 Ex C-7 seals “tutian han chori case hai". We can not but accept the learned counsel for the complainant’s arguments that this appears to be after-thought temperance of the record.


We also accept learned counsel for the complainant’s arguments that the signatory Sh.Surinder Singh on the consent placed on record is not known to him; as the Ops have failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut this denial or to prove that the signatory Surinder Singh was either relative or nominee of the complainant. The consent letter no. 193/67728 dated 13-01-2009/15109 does not help the ops in their stands. In these circumstances the Ops argument regarding non-compatibility of data & sanctioned load also fail to convince us.

10. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the ops have failed to comply with the departmental instructions contained in circular no. 8/99 reproduced as follows: “As per existing instructions contained in para-2(c) of C.C. No. 45/97 dated 17/12/97, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any meter change order (MCO) are to be sent to M.E. Labs in the sealed Card Board Box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, the consumer refuses to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the Op. S/Divn. Till the final disposal of the case.


If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committees or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the M.E. Labs. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case of meters sealed by Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organisation in theft cases”. Besides this the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has candidly observed in the Case PSEB and another VS Commercial Appeals cited as CL III (2009) 4 that for any lapse on the part of petitioner Board no consumer or complainant can be made liable.


The Hon'ble court has also taken the same view in case Tarsem Singh Vs PSEB cited as 2002 CCC (2) 584 where in it has been observed that testing of the meter-Electricity-defective meter testing of meter should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative; A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of the testing of meter procedure prescribed to this effect in Punjab State Electricity Board's commercial circular Nos. 45/98 & 8/99 is mandatory (Punjab State Electricity Board's Commercial circular no. 45/98 & 8/99.


The Hon'ble Court has further observed that the procedure contained in the above circulars must be treated as mandatory because the same is intended to protect the consumer against arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities of the Board and ordinarily the demand created in violation thereof would be liable to be invalidated. Ratio of these cases is applicable to the present case hence we allow the complaint quashing the memo no 497 dated 09/04/2009 claiming of Rs.83,397/-. The Ops are directed to refund Rs.28,000/- already deposited with the Ops’ Board in compliance with this Forum’s order dated 04-05-2009.

[adv.sumit]

Jagjit Singh aged about 62 years son of Sh.Narain Singh, resident of village Alamgir, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.



2. Assistant Executive Engineer Commercial, Sub Division Sarinh, Punjab State Electricity Board, near Village Alamgir, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)








O R D E R



1. Complainant having electric tubewell connection no. 13/337 AP, has filed the present complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against opposite party, on the assertions that they issued him a memo no.1607 dated 27.8.2008 leveling false allegations of running electric motor of 12.5 BHP instead of 7.5 BHP sanctioned in his name. Averred that firstly complainant got installed 5BHP motor, load of which was got extended to 7.5 BHP under V.D.S. Scheme by depositing Rs.3100/- on 31.1.2005 vide receipt no.244/82656, then to 10 BHP by depositing Rs.3100 vide receipt no.68/90843 dated 13.7.07 and then to 12.5. BHP under VDS by depositing Rs.3100 under receipt no.342/84175 dated 31.7.08, regarding which entries were made in the passbook. In such circumstances was using 12.5 BHP motor legally.


The allegations of running another electric motor of 7.5 BHP are also illegal as he never committed any theft of electricity as there was no need of another motor as he had already sold major portion of his land on 25.4.2008 to M/s Sunbeem Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and delivered possession thereof. He was astonished to receive the memo from OP No.2 directing him to deposit the amount of Rs.44,580/- within seven days or to submit objections. On approaching to know the details of the demand, no heed was paid to his request.


He moved written objections on 13.10.2008, which opposite party ignored arbitrarily and issued final notice dated 24.10.2008 on same allegations directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.57,870/- within seven days. Both the notices dated 27.8.2008 and 24.10.2008 are self contradictory and illegally. In the notice dated 27.8.08, they alleged checking of the connection no.12/337 AP on 28.7.2008 by employees of the department whereas in the second notice dated 24.10.2008 they alleged checking of electric connection no.13/337 AP on 28.7.08. In fact, no inspection of the electric connection was ever done in his presence or in the presence of his family members as alleged.


The demand raised is against the principles of natural justice. No details of the demand have been provided. He has been unnecessarily harassed having grudge as previous demand raised on false allegations, on challenging, has been set aside by the Distt. Fora. He never committed any illegality nor used unauthorized load. Due to acts of the opposite party, complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. Prayed that demand of Rs.57,870/- be quashed and opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. Opposite party in reply pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint being a case of theft as order of assessment was made under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and remedy of appeal is provided to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Additional Deputy Commissioner. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Pleaded that electric connection installed in the land of the consumer was checked by Sh. Mandeep Singh Sr. Executive Engineer Enforcement-1, who reported that one motor of 12.5 BHP was installed and another motor of 7.5 BHP by taking a cable from the starter of the said meter was installed and both the motors were in operation.


Reported to take necessary action as per instructions of the Board. Earlier consumer was having sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP, later on enhanced to 12.5 BHP. Notice was served upon the consumer asking to deposit Rs.57,870/-. Subsequently, the full board in its special meeting held on 14.11.2007 decided to levy the charges for theft in tubewell during paddy season 2007. As such, vide memo no.18 dated 7.1.2009 demand was revised to Rs.9660/- only and it was conveyed that excess amount would be adjusted in any of the account number given by the consumer.


Now the consumer is liable to pay only Rs.9660/- and the earlier notice has been withdrawn except the amount of Rs.9660/-. Fact regarding installation of the tubewell connection bearing account no.13/337-AP. On checking of the connection another motor of 75. BHP was found running unauthorisedly. Demand raised was subsequently revised by notice dated 7.1.2009 and fresh demand of Rs.9660/- has been raised. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. Averred that demand has been raised as per rules and regulations and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It has been prayed that demand raised is legal and genuine and the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Complainant having electric tubewell connection bearing account no. 13/337 AP argued that memo no.1607 dated 27.8.08 under section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act for unauthorized use of electricity for Rs.44,580/- was issued and 7 days time was given to deposit the same or raise objection if any and in this memo opposite party raised false allegation to run the electric motor of 12.5 BHP instead of 7.5. BHP. Complainant argued that this is wrong version of the opposite party as he got extended his load from 5 BHP to 7 BHP by depositing a sum of Rs.3100/- on 31.1.2005 vide receipt no. 244/82656.


Again the load was got extended from 7.5 BHP to 10 BHP under VDS Scheme by depositing Rs.3100/- vide receipt 68/90843 dated 13.7.07, then from 10 BHP to 12.5 BHP by depositing Rs.3100/- vide receipt no.342/84175 dated 31.7.2008. Therefore, he is using the tubewell connection of 12.5 BHP illegally without any fault. Further argued that he also raised objection against memo no. 1007 dated 27.8.08 vide letter dated 13.10.2008 Ex.C.3. But instead of reducing his grievance, opposite party issued a final order of assessment which was revised under section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity dated 24.10.2008 for Rs.57,870/- Ex.C.1.


Complainant further argued that it is also false allegation that he was running electric motor of 7.5 BHP through illegal means by direct wire from the main line whereas complainant never committed any theft of electricity. Complainant further argued that again provisional and final order of assessment under section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo dated 7.1.2009 was received by the complainant vide which opposite party had demanded Rs.9660/-. This amount has been intimated to the complainant only to harass him. Therefore, the demand raised vide memo no.7.1.2008 Ex.R.3 be quashed.

6. Ld. counsel for opposite party argued that the tubewell connection of the complainant was checked vide LCR no.301/39/28.7.2008 by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement no.1, PSEB, Ludhiana and found that one motor of 12.5 BHP was installed and another motor of 7.5 BHP was running by taking cable from the starter of the said motor. At the time of checking, it was found that both the motors were in operation.



Complainant was having sanctioned load of 7.5 BHP earlier and thereafter he got the load enhanced to 12.5 BHP. One motor of 7.5 BHP was being used unauthorisedly. Notice was served to the consumer to pay an amount of Rs.57,870/- for unauthorized use of electricity for running 7.5 BHP motor. Demand was later on revised vide memo 18 dated 7.1.2009 and consumer was liable to pay only Rs.9660/- and earlier notice dated 27.8.2008 and 24.10.2008 has been withdrawn. Complainant was found committing theft of electricity. Therefore, the amount charged for Rs.9660/- is genuine, legal and recoverable from the complainant. Sh. Mandeep Singh Senior Executive Engineer has submitted affidavit about his checking dated 28.7.08 Ex.RW1/A.

7. From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that connection of the complainant was checked vide LCR no.301/39 dated 28.7.08 vide which motor of 12.5 BHP and 7.5 BHP was found running. In the report, it was also mentioned by the officer of the board that 7.5 BHP motor with the help of a cable from the main line was also running as the opposite party made allegations that 7.5 BHP motor was running in an unauthorized way. Therefore, provisional order of assessment under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Rs.44,580/- vide memo no.1607 dated 27.8.08 was issued and also final order of assessment under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity vide memo no.1455 dated 24.10.2008 for Rs.57,870/- was issued.


Later on above mentioned amount in the provisional as well as in the final order of assessment was reduced as per Board’s meeting vide memo no.1319/24 dated 18.11.2008 Ex.R.2 and revised order was issued under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity for Rs.9660/- dated 7.1.2008. It is also to mention here that as per the checking report Ex.R.1, checking officer Sh. Manjit Singh Senior XEN Enforcement no.1, PSEB, Ludhiana has not mentioned anything on the report itself whether the consumer or its representative was present at site or not, whether they refused to sign the checking report or not.


Even the checking officer Sh. Mandip Singh Sr. Executive Engineer, Enforcement, PSEB, Ludhiana has submitted affidavit Ex.RW1/A but in the affidavit he has not mentioned anything about presence of the consumer or his representative at the time of checking or their refusal to sign the checking report. It is quite clear from the checking report that the checking has not been done as per rules and regulations of the Board and the checking officer has not adopted proper procedure for checking connection of the complainant.

8. Hon’ble State U.T. Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh reported in 2008 (1) CLT 237 has held that where the checking report does not contain the signatures of the consumer or his representative, having no evidence of supplying copy of the report to the consumer, checking report would be against the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board.

9. Hon’ble, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Charan Singh Vs. The Chairman PSEB and others reported in 2006 (1) CLT 659 also held that of theft need to be proved. In that case, the signatures of the complainant or his representative were missing from the checking report and collateral evidence i.e. the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing the electricity energy was also not seized.


So, the report of the Meter Inspector which was not signed by the complainant was not accepted. Similar are the facts here. Checking report is not signed by the complainant, copy not given to him and alleged piece of wire through which kundi connection was made was also not seized.

[adv.sumit]

Akhlesh Kumar aged 48 years son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of village Nandpur, Basant Vihar, Garcha Colony, Tehsil Sahnewal, Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Patiala.



2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board ( Sub Division) Sahnewal, Distt. Ludhiana.



3. Senior Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sahnewal U-III, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)






O R D E R



1. Complainant being consumer of electric connection no. SF05/1588 has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly spelled, his case is that has been using electricity and payment the bills regularly. Meter status remained always OK. To his utter surprise, the opposite parties sent memo no.884 dated 25.8.2008 for Rs.77,738/- leveling false allegations of theft. No official of opposite party ever visited his house in his presence, never took his signatures on the alleged inspection report. On receiving the memo, be approached the concerned officials of opposite party and requested that he never committed any theft of electricity.


Also made written request dated 8.9.08 intimating that the memo is prepared in haste as is clear from the address, not sustainable under law as having no legal sanctity. He was assured to do the needful. However, the opposite parties sent bill dated 12.11.2008 claiming Rs.77,738/- as sundry charges and on approaching, they refused to withdraw the illegal demand threatened to disconnect the electric connection. The demand is illegal, null,, void, abinitio, unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. His premises were never checked in his presence or in the presence of his family member. No checking report bearing no.19/428 dated 12.8.08 was prepared . Meter was intact, OK and working properly. No unauthorized use was ever detected.


Moreover, it is apparent from the memo that officials of the opposite party inspected the premises of one Akhlesh Kumar son of Sh. Om Parkash of Sukhi Colony, whereas the complainant is residing in Basant Vihar, Garcha Colony, Sahnewal, Distt. Ludhiana where no checking as alleged has been done. He never committed theft nor used electricity unauthorisedly. Moreover, there is no joint in PVC in the house of the complainant. Service of impugned memo and bill is ,misuse of official capacity on their part. The opposite party also failed to send the alleged intimation/checking report dated 12.8.08 to the complainant within 48 hours as per their rules. No intimation of alleged checking was given to the complainant.


The impugned bill was sent in routine. The opposite parties have acted very negligently and deficiently and beyond their jurisdiction. As such, the demand is illegal, unjust and liable to be quashed. On request, officials of opposite parties refused to withdraw the illegal demand and gave illegal threats. Due to deficiency in service, complainant suffered harassment, humiliation, mental and physical pain and agony for which he is entitled to compensation. In such circumstances, it has been prayed that demand of Rs.77,738/- raised vide memo no.884 dated 25.8.2008 and bill dated 12.11.2008 be set aside and opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for negligence and deficiency in service.

2. In reply, opposite party took objections that demand of Rs.77738/- relates to theft of energy compensation charges raised through provisional order of assessment u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the material facts. In fact, electric connection no. SF-05/1588 having sanctioned load of 1.87 Kw. was checked on 12.8.2008 in the presence of the consumer who refused to sign the checking report by Biant Singh J.E. Sahnewal Sub Division and checking report was prepared on the spot.


Total load running was 3.346Kw. . it was mentioned in the checking report that there was joint inside the house of the complainant and the consumer was stealing energy by affixing two red electric wires directly from the joint by affixing the same into plug and meter was lying stand still, so, the consumer was found committing theft of electricity bye-passing the meter. So, a sum of Rs.77,738/- was found recoverable from the consumer of the said connection as per rules and demand raised through provisional order of assessment memo no.884 dated 25.8.2008 and the same is legal and genuine.


Fact regarding complainant being consumer of the electric connection in question, raising the demand are admitted. But denied that no checking official visited the premises in order to check the connection in the presence of the complainant nor took his signatures. In fact, the checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking report with malafide reason. Mere filing false objections do not prove that the complainant was not stealing energy. Memo of provisional order of assessment was issued against the connection of the complainant and account number was correctly mentioned therein.


As the amount was not deposited, so, same was later on debited to account through sundry register entry and was included in the current bill and the demand is legal and genuine. The complainant was found committing theft of electricity bye passing the meter and excess load was also found running at side. The demand raises is as per rules, legal and genuine. The amount is not liable to be withdrawn in any manner. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. In view of the facts, detailed above, it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed being without any merits.

3. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. The complainant bearing account no. SF-05/1588 argued that he received memo no.884 dated 25.8.08 amounting to Rs. 77,738/- by leveling false allegations of theft. Complainant further argued that the amount was also put in the bill dated 12.11.2008 claiming Rs.77,738/- is not genuine and legal. Complainant argued that no body visited his house for checking and also not signatures were obtained and this is false report. Complainant further argued that no copy of the checking report was pasted at the conspicuous place of the premises of the complainant and no wire was removed. No videography was taken.


Complainant argued that he had been paying the bills regularly and meter status was always Ok before this checking report. Complainant argued that no final order of assessment was issued to the complainant though he had made request vide letter dated 8.9.08 intimating that the memo no. 884 is not sustainable and having no legal sanctity.

6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that electric connection bearing account no. SF05/1588 having sanctioned load of 1.87Kws. was checked on 15.8.08 in the presence of the complainant, who refused to sign the checking report Ex.R.1 and this checking was done by Sh. Biant Singh J.E. of Sahnewal Sub Division of Estate Division, PSEB, Ludhiana vide no.128/19/12.8.2008. Opposite party argued that there was a joint in side the house of the complainant and the complainant was stealing energy by affixing two red electric wires directly from joint by affixing the same into plug and the meter was topped and complainant was found committing theft of electricity by bye passing the meter and also the complainant was using 3.346kws. load against the sanctioned load of 1.87Kw. Opposite party argued that the complainant was committing theft of electricity and using excess load.


Therefore, he was charged Rs.77,738/- against the theft of electricity and the demand is legal, genuine and to be recoverable from the consumer. Opposite party argued that provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.884 dated 25.8.2008 was issued against the theft and excess load for Rs.77,738/- and the complainant was given seven days time to deposit the same and raise objections, if any. But the complainant did not act upon and as a result amount of Rs.77,738/- was added in the bill dated 12.11.2008 as sundry charges and total amount of the bill is Rs.79,810/- which is payable by 25.8.08.


Opposite party argued that as there was no receipt of objections against the provisional order of assessment of the complainant which he mentioned in letter dated 8.9.08 Ex.C.2 Opposite party argued that there was no diary or receipt by the PSEB on this letter. Opposite party argued that official who has checked the connection has also submitted affidavit about this checking dated 2.8.08 Ex.RW2/A. Opposite party argued that the complainant was present at site but he refused to sign report which has been mentioned by the checking official on the report itself. Opposite party argued that the amount charged Rs.77,738/- against the checking Ex.R.1 is genuine, legal and to be chargeable from the complainant.

7. From the above facts and figures, it is clear that the electric connection of the complainant was checked vide LCR no.128/19/12.8.08 Ex.R.1 in which complainant was found committing theft of electricity by bye passing the meter in the presence of the consumer, who refused to sign the checking report. Complainant was having 1,87 Kws. load and they found running 3.340kws. which was excessive against the sanctioned load and the complainant was stealing energy by affixing electric wires directly from the joint by putting into plug and meter was stopped and also by passing the meter committing theft of electricity.


So, a sum of Rs.77,738/- was raised against theft of electricity and excess load used by the complainant and provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was issued vide memo no.884 dated 25.8.08 Ex.R.1 and later on this amount of Rs.77,738/- was added in the bill dated 12.11.2008 total amount of Rs.78,810/- which includes amount of Rs.77,738/- as sundry charges. It is also to mention here that Sh. Biant Singh J.E. of Sahnewal Sub Division of Estate Division, PSEB, Ludhiana submitted an affidavit Ex.RW2/A that he personally checked the connection bearing account no. SF05/1588 in the presence of the complainant and the complainant was present at site but he refused to sign the report Ex.R.1.

[adv.sumit]

Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Salig Ram, r/o B-34-5309, Street No.6, Anand Nagar, Haibowal, Ludhiana.





…..Complainant.

Versus



Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer, Haibowal Unit-2, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party.







O R D E R








1- Complainant is consumer under the opposite party qua domestic electric connection of account no.DF22/1545, with sanctioned load of 2.97 KW. The connection had electronic meter. Suddenly on 20.11.2007 at 9.00 a.m., light of the connection went off, qua which complaint no.898 was lodged with the opposite party. At 7.10 p.m., Sh. Puran Singh employee of opposite party came to the house, consequent to his complaint and reported that meter of the connection was burnt and made direct supply to his house. Subsequently, opposite party vide memo no.1209/24 dated 22.11.2007, removed his burnt meter which at that time was showing 9302 units. Whereas, in his earlier bill dated 25.10.2007, reading of the meter was 4075.


Consequently, within a span of 28 days, could not have consumed so much energy. So, on 23.11.2007, deposited Rs.120/- vide receipt no.516 for checking of his meter. The meter in ME Lab. was checked on 26.3.2008 in presence of the complainant, where the meter was reported to be totally burnt and dead stop, result of which could not be taken. Thereafter, opposite party sent bill dated 10.1.2008, demanding Rs.23,670/-. This bill is assailed to be wrong, null, void and illegal, in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is averred that within span of 28 days, could not have consumed so much energy. Therefore, demand liable to be set aside.

2- Opposite party in reply, claimed that this complaint is not maintainable, is barred by own act and conduct of the complainant. However, conceded that complainant is consumer under them qua the electric connection. This connection was checked by Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma, AJE on 22.11.2007 in presence of the complainant. At the time of checking, meter was showing reading as 9302. As the meter was also found dead, so it was removed and sent to ME Lab., where it was tested and checked in presence of the complainant. Meter was found totally burnt and dead stop. Meter reading was found 9302. Hence, demand in question pertains to reading 9302, after considering previous reading 4075. Therefore, demand pertained to actual consumption of 5227 units consumed by the complainant. The demand is proper and legal and as a result, complaint deserves dismissal.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Complainant in support of his allegations, has filed his own affidavit and copy of application Ex.C2, requesting opposite party, to check his meter in ME Lab. On such checking of the meter in ME Lab., vide ME Lab. report, the same was found burnt and dead stop and at that time, the meter was showing consumption of 9302 units. This checking in ME Lab., was done in presence of the complainant and he had no grouse against such ME lab. report.

5- Also it is admitted case that meter reader on 22.11.2007 at the time of checking, noted down in checking report Ex.C1, meter reading 9302. This report was signed by the complainant. It means on 22.11.2007, when the meter was checked, it was burnt and dead stop, showing consumption of energy to the tune of 9302 units. Admittedly, meter was electronic.

6- There is nothing to support contention of the complainant that meter reading of the meter, got suddenly changed, when the meter got burnt. Burning of the meter had nothing to do with recording of consumption or showing of consumption units in the meter, especially when the same was electronic meter. But it is contended by the complainant that his previous old reading was 4075 units on 25.10.2007 and consequently, within 28 days when meter on 22.11.2007 was checked, could not have consumed 5227 units.


Such presumptive arguments can not be permitted to prevail on assumption only. Because possibility could also not be ruled out that reading dated 25.10.2007 could also be presumptive and not actual. As meter reader, without recording actual reading after visiting the connection, recorded presumptive reading. Presumption has no place under law. So neither way, we can presume that so much energy could not have been consumed by the complainant, within a span of 28 days. As it could be for the reason that previous reading may not be actual, but only presumptive.

7- According to the complainant, the meter was faulty, giving incorrect reading, so complaint deserves to be allowed. He in support took us to a case reported in Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking Vs Laffans(I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2006(1)CPC-111(SC). But with due respect, we venture to say that ratio of the case relied is not at all attracted to the case in hand. As in that case, meter was found faulty, giving incorrect reading. Whereas, in the instant case, the meter was burnt and found dead stop, showing reading qua energy consumed. Therefore, this authority would be no help to the complainant.

[adv.sumit]

Balbir Singh aged about 29 year’s son of late Sh. Des Raj Saini, Shop No.10-G, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)



Vs.



1. P.S.E.B. through its Senior Executive Engineer, Aggar Nagar Division (Spl.) Near Canal, Opp. Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.



2. A.E.E. ©, K.S.S. Unit-III, Office of Senior Executive Engineer, Aggar Nagar Division (Spl.) Opp. Milk Plant, near Canal, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

(opposite parties)








O R D E R



1. Sh. Balbir Singh, above noted complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Punjab State Electricity Board.

2. Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that after the death of his fathering whose name electric connection no.AN03/701 (NRS) is installed; complainant is using the same and paying the bills regularly. Averred that in Jan.2008, one officer of opposite party checked the same and levelled concocted charges of theft of electricity by tampering the M.E. seals and running of excess load. The matter was clarified at the spot as he never tampered the seals.


The ordinary plug was taken as power plug while calculating the load. In bill dated 21.9.08, opposite party added an amount of Rs.50,803/- in the column of arrear and also served two notices i.e. memo no.3460/- dated 26.2.08 and 3531 dated 8.3.2008 through which they charged Rs.40,628/- on account of theft of electricity and unauthorized load surcharge. On receipt of the same, complainant contacted the concerned official with request to withdraw the penalty amount but they did not care. Hence, he deposited Rs.12,000/- vide cheque no.451427 dt. 29.9.98 on account of consumption charges. Pleaded that the amount of Rs.40,628/- has been illegally charged and is liable to be quashed as he never tampered the seals nor used excess load as alleged.


The meter was in intact position. The meter has not been checked in the M.E. Lab. Moreover, mere broken seals are not conclusive proof of theft of electricity. Charge of theft has been leveled on the basis of presumption. Removed meter was not packed and sealed. No irregularity was ever pointed out. It has been prayed that the demand of Rs.40,628/- raised vide notice memo no.3460 dated 26.2.2008 and 3531 dated 8.3.2008 be quashed and he be granted Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental and physical tension and Rs.4000/- as litigation costs.

3. Opposite party in reply pleaded that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, he is not entitled to any relief as there is no deficiency in service. Averred that electric connection no. AN-03/0701 of NRS category in the name of Sh. Des Raj Saini was checked by Sh. A.A.E. (T) Unit-I, Aggar Nagar Division n 18.1.2008 vide LCR no.32/1223 in the presence of Sh. Balbir Singh complainant, who also signed the checking report after admitting the same as correct. It was found that both the M.E. seals of the meter were found tampered and it was a case of theft of electricity.


The complainant was also found using 3 Kw. load against the sanctioned load of 0.920Kw. Provisional Assessment order for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of the E.A. 2003 was served upon the consumer through memo no.3460 dated 26.2.2008 and an amount o Rs.40,628/- was charged from the consumer Sh. Des Raj who neither deposited the amount nor submitted any objections and as such final assessment order /memo no.3531 dated 8.3.2008 was served upon the consumer who again failed to deposit the said amount which was later on charged along with surcharge in the electricity bills sent to the consumer. The electric connection is in the name of Sh. Des Raj Saini and the complainant has not given any information to the opposite party with regard to death of Sh. Des Raj nor got changed the connection in his name by moving proper application nor he disclosed the names of other legal heirs.


He has also not produced any consent letter of other legal heirs on the record, as such has no locus standi to file the complaint as there is no privity of contract between the parties. The electric connection in dispute is of NRS category used for commercial purpose and as such the complaint is not maintainable. Fact regarding installation of the electric connection, checking of the electric connection and raising of the demand are admitted. Rest all the assertions have been denied.


In view of the facts, detailed above, averred that the complainant was using 3 Kw. load against the sanctioned load of 0.920Kw. and committing theft of electricity by tampering the seals. The demand has been rightly raised as per checking report and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant deposited Rs.12000/- without any protest and he is liable to pay the remaining amount. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. In view of the facts, detailed above, it has been prayed that the complaint dismissed with costs.

4. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. The complainant having electric connection bearing account no.AN03/701 argued that opposite party in the bill dated 21.9.08 added an amount of Rs.50803/- in the column of arrears and also served notices as provisional order of assessment for unauthorized of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3460 dated 26.2.08 for 40,628/- and final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3531 dated 8.3.08 for Rs.40,628 which is illegal and not genuine.


Complainant further argued that no M.E. Lab. testing report of the meter was obtained and also argued that mere tampering of the seals can not be held the complainant committing theft of electricity. Complainant further argued that there was no power plug and there was only ordinary plug in the wiring and they have calculated the load by mistake by taking ordinary plug as a power plug. Therefore, the demand raised by the opposite party for Rs.40,628/- on account of theft and unauthorized load surcharge is illegal and to be quashed.

7. Whereas the opposite party argued that the electric connection of the complainant of NRS category in the name of Sh. Des Raj Saini was checked by AEE (T) unit 1 Aggar Nagar Division vide LCR no.32 /1223 dated 18.1.08 in the presence of Sh. Balbir Singh complainant. At the time of checking, it was found that both M.E. Seals of the meter were tampered and also the complainant was using 3 Kw. load against his sanctioned load of 0.920Kw. The complainant was present at site and after admitting the correctness of the same, he has singed on it. Opposite party argued that as the complainant was using unauthorized load as the M.E. seals were found broken and also using unauthorized load 3.0Kws. against sanctioned load of 0.920Kws.


Therefore, provisional order of assessment for unauthorized of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3660 dated 26.2.08 for 40,628/- was issued and seven days time was time to deposit the amount or to file objections, if any. The complainant not submitted any objections against the provisional order, as such, the final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3531 dated 8.3.08 for Rs.40,628/- was issued.


The same is genuine and legal and the amount is chargeable from the consumer. It has been further argued that Sh. Raj Kumar AEE (T) Unit No.1 (special) has submitted an affidavit that he checked the connection on 18.1.09 and found that both ME seals were broken and the complainant was using load of 3 Kw. against the sanctioned load of 0.920Kws. Opposite party argued that the load checked by the checking official was calculated correctly and the amount Rs.40,628/- which has been raised against theft of electricity as both M.E. seals were found broken and using excess load is legal, genuine and to be recoverable.

8. From the above facts and figures it is clear that connection of the complainant was checked vide LCR32/1223 dated 18.1.08 Ex.R.1 by Sh. Raj Kumar AEE (T) PSEB, Ludhiana in which he has mentioned clearly in the checking report that two number M.E. seal found broken of the meter and made a theft case as mentioned in the report Ex.R1 and Sh. Raj Kumar AEE PSEB Ludhiana has submitted an affidavit about the checking (Ex.RW2/A). As per the report of the checking official the complainant was committing theft of electricity due to tampered seals and also using excess load of 3.00 Kws. against sanctioned load of 0.920Kws.


Therefore provisional order of assessment for unauthorized of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3460 dated 26.2.08 for 40,628/- and final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3531 dated 8.3.08 for Rs.40,628/- was also issued. It is also to mention here that as the checking official has made theft case against two number M.E. seals broken and it is also worth mentioning here that the meter has not been got tested from the M.E. Lab. for internal and external investigations to prove the theft.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in case reported in III (2007) CPJ 410 (NC) titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar has held that allegation of theft is of a criminal nature and had to be proved with cogent and reliable defence which the opposite party has failed to produce.

10. In another case reported in 2003 (1) Criminal Court Cases, 163 (P & H) titled as Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that mere tampering of seals would not amount to theft of electricity In that case seals of the meter found to be broken and tampered with. It was held that no offence u/s 39 is made out in the absence of proof of dishonest intention and that some artificial means or means not authorised by the licensee exists or the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer.

11. Fora reaches at the conclusion that mere tampering of the seals as per checking report Ex.R.1 can not held responsible the complainant for committing theft of electricity and demand raised by the opposite party as in provisional order of assessment for unauthorized of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3460 dated 26.2.08 for 40,628/- and final order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity u/s 126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo no.3531 dated 8.3.08 for Rs.40,628/- against the theft is illegal and not genuine.


It is also to be mentioned here that the demand raised by the opposite party against the complainant for using excess load of 3 Kws. against the sanction 0.920 is genuine, legal and to be recoverable from the complainant. Therefore, the demand raised against the theft of electricity against the complainant by merely tampering of the seals is illegal and not to be recoverable from the consumer. But demand raised buy the opposite party for using excess load of 3 Kws. against sanctioned load 0.920Kw. is recoverable and to be chargeable from the consumer.

[adv.sumit]

Kamaljit Singh s/o Sh. Bhajan Singh r/o Gopalpur, P.O. Dehlon, District Ludhiana.



…..Complainant.

Versus



Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Divn. Ahmedgarh S/U-1, through SE, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party.









O R D E R










1- Complainant has assailed bill dated 14.7.2008 under which, a sum of Rs.9661/- was claimed by opposite party, by way of sundry charges against his domestic electric connection of account no.RA03/0172F. He claimed in this complaint that he never unauthorisedly used electricity, so claim raised is illegal and liable to be set aside.

2- Opposite party in defence, pleaded that complaint is not maintainable, this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the same. It was averred that connection of the complainant was checked by Sh.Parmail Singh, JE, in presence of the complainant, vide LCR No.137/72 dated 21.1.2008. At the time of checking, it was found that the consumer had stopped the meter, by inclining the same. Hence, he concluded it to be a case of theft of energy. Mechanical meter of the consumer was ordered to be changed with electronic meter, outside gate of the house.


The checking officer also reported that by putting the meter at the correct position and putting load on the meter, the disc was running forward. Consumer refused to sign the report. On the basis of report, account of the consumer was overhauled and notice dated 24.1.2008 was issued, demanding to pay Rs.9658/-. On his failure, same was added in his bill dated 14.7.2008 and the demand is legal and justified.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- The demand raised against the complainant in his bill Ex.R3 dated 14.7.2008, claiming Rs.9661/- as sundry charges, was based upon checking report Ex.R1 dated 21.1.2008. On that day, Sh. Parmail Singh, JE, while checking, found that the consumer had stopped the meter by inclining the same. Therefore, concluded the same to be theft of electricity. When he put the meter in correct position and put it on load, it started showing consumption.

5- In support of such plea, affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Parmail Singh JE, is relied.

6- Even if, we accept this affidavit or evidence in totality, we feel that it would not go to prove commission of theft of electricity by the complainant. Because there is nothing on the record that it was complainant, who himself had changed position of the meter, in order to stop it. There is no allegation that complainant had tampered with inner circuit of the meter and stopped its functioning. Inclining of the meter, if true, can not be attributed due to any deliberate or intentional act of the complainant. It can be for any other reason, unconnected with the complainant. Theft charges are serious charges and deserves to be proved, by cogent evidence.


Mere on apprehension, a person can not be termed guilty of committing theft of energy. In arriving at such conclusion, we are fortified from bill Ex.R3 dated 14.7.2008 itself. In this bill, energy consumed by the complainant during last 12 months, is recorded. In cycle one, consumed 100 units, cycle two 69 units, cycle three 68 units, cycle four 61 units, cycle five 102 units and cycle six 88 units. It means meter of the complainant was showing consumption of electricity regularly. Had it been tampered by the complainant, he could not have consumed electricity, prior to the date of checking.